Marutūāhu federation of Hauraki, which had a long- standing claim to the western part of Te Puna-Katikati...”.

[Emphasis added]

[Page 199]

“We find that the Crown's purchase of the Te Puna-Katikati blocks, anchored as it was in the consent of a small minority of loyalist Ngai Te Rangi chiefs and subsequently imposed, with compensation, on other Ngai Te Rangi hapu and Ngati Ranginui, Ngati Pukenga, and Marutūāhu, was in defiance of the Treaty promise that Maori land should be alienated to the Crown only with the free and willing consent of its owners.” [Emphasis added]

[Pages 199-200]

“Although there was vigorous debate between the Ngai Te Rangi and Marutūāhu claimants during our hearings, we heard no convincing argument to the effect that the Clarke-Mackay arbitration was wrong or unfair. In the circumstances, we accept that Clarke and Mackay’s decisions and the amounts of monetary compensation that they awarded were fair in relative but not absolute terms. In our view, Marutūāhu had claims only in the narrow Katikati block and in relatively limited portions of the Te Puna block, such as at Ongare. Accordingly, we think that the £2160 that the Hauraki tribes received for their interests was fair in proportion to the £7700 that Ngai Te Rangi received for their much more extensive interests. But, when we consider the reserves awarded alongside the monetary payments, it becomes evident that Ngai Te Rangi, who received virtually all of the 8000 acres of reserves in Te Puna-Katikati, were more generously treated than Hauraki. The only promised awards of reserves to the Hauraki iwi were 75 acres of wahi tapu, which the claimants allege were never actually set aside by the Government. This disparity between the relatively large reserves awarded to the Ngai Te Rangi chiefs and the virtually non-existent reserves awarded to Marutūāhu and the Ngati Ranginui hapu is clear evidence of a failure to treat Maori equally according to their customary rights in Te Puna-Katikati.” [Emphasis added]

[Page 201]

“>The purchase process was coercive in nature for almost all who held customary rights to the blocks - including ... Marutūāhu.” [Emphasis added]

[Page 298-299]

“10.8.1 Hauraki wahi tapu reserves

The purchase deed signed by Ngati Maru and Ngati Tamatera for their interests in the Te Puna-Katikati blocks provided for several wahi tapu reserves, and these were the subject of argument between their counsel and the Crown (see sec 10.4). Neither party was able to find any evidence that the reserves were set aside. The Crown argued that, in view of the lack of evidence, we should not make a finding of any failure to establish the reserves. But if the promised wahi tapu reserves had been set aside, surveyed, and gazetted, evidence of that would surely have been found either among titles held today by Land Information New Zealand or in the New Zealand Gazette, and the reserves would legally exist. Clearly, they do not.